That’s a good point. I’ll have to remember that.
Both, but your clarification is, again, helpful.
This is true. Mainstream libertarians like Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie support environmental regulation and point to the the Clean Air and Water Acts as evidence of their usefulness.
1 Like
Yeah, libertarianism is a modern American rebranding exercise of all the awful shit everyone thought ended with the Gilded Age. What I’m going after here, is libertarians acting like they are the only people who can be trusted to protect civil liberties. Believing libertarianism is beyond the Republican-Democrat binary is an implicit admission of how stunted the terms of American political debate are now, and how little they know about other political traditions. But honestly, that’s a sign of success for them, if libertarianism is the only popularly conceivable alternative to the status quo, even though it is the last defence of it.
1 Like
So, I have to ask. When you ask someone who they are… which do you trust?
Their word, or your own lying eyes?
Moving the goal posts is really satisfying, because now I get a free pass to ignore all of the problems of actually-existing socialism and just club you its unrealized potential.
I agree that those institutions represent the mainstream of libertarianism, but those individuals do not, and are not even consistent in their support. There is a current within libertarianism that supports the existence of a safety net to handle issues the market cannot, but they are just a current. The comments on the guaranteed income piece are almost universally negative, suggesting safety nets isn’t really a popular position with the readership, and one I suspect libertarians will mostly oppose if the issue comes to the fore. The Cato Institute for example has long been a proponent of privatizing social services, and even hired Pinochet’s former labour minister for his experience in doing that to Chileans.
Because how property was acquired in the past has a big impact on how it is distributed it now. If somebody stole your coat and tries to sell it back to you an hour later legitimize the theft? The creation of private property required a great deal of dispossession, and those historical actions have significant bearing on why some people are rich and others are poor.
1 Like
But if the market is the ultimate arbiter of values for libertarians, why would there be an incentive to put anything over the profit motive? Your less high minded competitors would put you out of business. Furthermore, the idea that the government is about accumulating power in the way capitalists accumulate capital is where libertarianism is really off the mark in it’s analysis. It’s a very simplistic understanding of an institution that has historical existed as a reflection and legitimizer of existing economic relations, and has always been an instrument of the dominant class in a given society.
Funny thing about that.
I agree entirely, which is why I strongly disagree with libertarian claims that capitalism is somehow synonymous with human nature, and our best future lies in fulfilling contractual obligations forever.
Whenever a libertarian denounces “crony capitalism” they are viewing the state that way. States and market are no more opposed than the soccer player is to the pitch. The very existence of the free market itself is dependent on the state to enforce a particular set of social relations. Private property is no more a natural right than collective ownership, so lets not pretend the state is being non-interventionist when it supports private property.
1 Like
The problems that come with communism or socialism or libertarianism have nothing to do with atrocities committed by dictators pretending to follow those philosophies. Stalin and Mao didn’t kill millions because communism, just as Pinochet didn’t commit his crimes because libertarianism. It’s too simplistic and frankly baseless to suggest otherwise.
Well, sure. Go to Democratic Underground or Salon and you’ll see lots of people defending Obama’s actions, but I’m not going to then determine that Democrats are therefore war mongers who oppose civil rights. That would be silly. There are lots of libertarians who are assholes. Same can be said for Democrats and Socialists and most any other group. But judging the group by the assholes is to willfully embrace a level of ignorance about the philosophies involved.
I don’t disagree with this. But it’s equally true that those historical actions have no bearing whatsoever on why some people are rich and others are poor. It’s complex that way.
Because most libertarians are, like people everywhere, decent human beings. It’s why, despite how strange it seemed to you, libertarians can believe in environmental regulations and social safety nets.
I didn’t say that was the case. I simply said that some libertarians feel that way about government, the way some people on the left feel that way about corporations. Neither government nor corporations are inherently evil. The people in charge of those things, however, too frequently behave in evil ways.
Well, quoting a philosophical treatise from the most radical wing of libertariansm isn’t really different than someone quoting philosophers who wonder aloud if infanticide shouldn’t be made legal while trying to paint all pro-life people as baby-killers.
And that’s the nature of philosophy. There are kind, compassionate, intelligent, scholarly people who would argue that that’s exactly where our best future lies and it’s the key to improving the lives of the most human beings. I don’t know what’s true. But I’m not going to reflexively dismiss either position the way libertarians are reflexively dismissed in these parts.
Again, that’s a philosophical position (one I strongly disagree with) (EDIT: or do I? If I start thinking about “rights” and what they are, my head might very well explode). Libertarians (along with plenty of other peopel) reasonably denounce “crony capitalism” when the state acts to protect and/or enrich people who, in turn, help them stay in power. If you don’t think the right to own property is a natural right, I can see how it would seem like a moebius strip of endless and arbitrary power exchange.
Yes, for that, see Democrats. 
“States rights” is the same banner that Reagan waved while he gave his “states rights” speech near the site of murdered civil rights activists. It’s neoconfederate code. States rights also mean that states can choose to harshly punish any of the “virtuous” things you’re touting as well, because they don’t really support them as much as the state’s (elite) right to do whatever it chooses. Nobody buys that Libertarians give a damn about civil rights. So yeah, basically Libertarians don’t really care what gays get up to and want to smoke pot. What a platform to hang your hat on. You guys are so hip and cool… “Identity politics”. You’re basically no more progressive than any bourgeois soccer mom at Whole Foods. Except she of course probably would think that a private business should not be able to refuse service to the previously mentioned minorities while you guys…
1 Like
This is true, but the more prominent pattern that’s occurred has been that the states increase civil liberties (alcohol, drugs, gay marriage, even suffrage, I believe) and the feds follow. States rights can be used for good or ill.
Wow. How many gay libertarians would have to tell you that you shouldn’t pretend to be able to read people’s minds before you recognized your error? What you’ve written isn’t just rude and childish, but it’s demonstrably false. It’s of the same quality of comments you’ll find about Democrats on sites like Free Republic and Red State.
I’m not a libertarian. I just happen to be radical enough to think that because I disagree with a group on some issues, it doesn’t mean I have to reflexively dismiss them on all the issues (or baselessly question their character), especially as they are frequently very liberal.
The rest of your comment is of the same quality; nothing but substance-free, juvenile, ad hominem attacks. So, I think I’m not going to respond to you anymore. Life is too short.
I suspect that may have something to do with them never having been in power.
4 Likes
Why is it ever not enemas?
An excellent point! I doubt they’re immune to power’s corrupting…um…power. Yeah…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
